4.2 Article

HIGH RELATIVE HUMIDITY INCREASES PILFERING SUCCESS OF YELLOW PINE CHIPMUNKS

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 796-802

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-119.1

关键词

associative learning; cache recovery; olfaction; Tamias amoenus

类别

资金

  1. American Society of Mammalogists
  2. University of Nevada
  3. Reno Graduate Student Association
  4. Little Valley Fellowship
  5. Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scatter-hoarding animals store food items to be used later when food is scarce. However, other individuals can pilfer food stores because caches are not usually defended. We tested how associative learning contributes to foraging success of pilferers searching for scatter-hoarded food. We conducted a field-based, seed-removal experiment to test 2 hypotheses. First, yellow pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus) will learn to associate buried food with recurring objects faster than they will learn to associate food with singular (distinctive) objects Second, they will learn to associate buried food with man-made objects faster than they will learn to associate food with natural objects. Rodents clearly learned to associate objects with buried food regardless of distinctiveness or origin. The observed pattern of seed removal suggested that high relative humidity (RH) events (storm systems) increased seed odor, facilitating olfaction by rodents, and increasing the rate of seed removal. We tested this hypothesis in a laboratory experiment using 8 wild-caught yellow pine chipmunks and 5 levels of RH (17%, similar to 27%, similar to 50%, similar to 75%, or similar to 95%). Foraging success at 17-75% RH was not different from random, but at 95% RH seed recovery was significantly higher than random. High RH facilitates discovery of buried seeds, and with higher foraging success, associative learning of cache markers may be easier. Thus, cache pilfering may be facilitated by high humidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据